Fighting For The Angels

"If my understanding of predestination is not correct, then my sin is compounded, since I would be slandering the saints who by opposing my view are fighting for the angels." (RC Sproul, Chosen by God, pg. 14)

Hits Since 3/25/08

598,411

John Wesley

"Answer all [the Calvinists'] objections, as occasion offers, both in public and private. But take care to do this with all possible sweetness both of look and of accent...Make it a matter of constant and earnest prayer, that God would stop the plague."

God’s Sovereignty

"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God

James Arminius

"Besides, even true and living faith in Christ precedes regeneration strictly taken, and consisting of the mortification or death of the old man, and the vivification of the new man...For Christ becomes ours by faith, and we are engrafted into Christ, are made members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones, and, being thus planted with him, we coalesce or are united together, that we may draw from him the vivifying power of the Holy Spirit, by which power the old man is mortified and we rise again into a new life." [Works Vol.2 pg. 233, Wesleyan Heritage Collection].

As I stated in my last post, there is no more important question with regards to the controversy between Arminianism and Calvinism than the question of priority with regards to faith and regeneration. R.C. Sproul writes,

A cardinal point of Reformed theology [Calvinism] is the maxim: “Regeneration precedes faith.” Our nature is so corrupt, the power of sin is so great, that unless God does a supernatural work in our souls we will never choose Christ. We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order to believe. (Chosen By God, pg. 72)

While many Calvinists will cringe at the charge, they are essentially saying that one does not believe until they are saved [born again]. This is the bare and necessary conclusion when the theological smoke screen of Reformed theology finally clears. I believe that I have already effectively demonstrated why such a doctrine is incompatible with God’s word in my last post. We will now take some time to consider some of the “proof texts” that Calvinists have offered to support their doctrine of irresistible regeneration. We will begin where R.C. Sproul began in Chosen By God, with John 6:44,

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” [NASB]

Sproul says of this passage, “The key word here is draw.” After briefly, and somewhat inaccurately, describing the Arminian view that the drawing of John 6:44 is not irresistible, he concludes,

I am persuaded that the above explanation [that this drawing is a resistible “wooing”], which is so widespread, is incorrect. It does violence to the text of Scripture, particularly to the biblical meaning of the word draw. The Greek word used here is elko. Kittle’sTheological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it to mean to compel by irresistible superiority. Linguistically and lexicographically, the word means “to compel. (ibid. pg. 69)

He then cites James 2:6, and Acts 16:19, where the same Greek word is used of forceful dragging.

Steve Witzki, a contributor for The Arminianmagazine looked into Sproul’slexicographical claims and came up with some surprising results. He writes,

After investigating “Big” Kittel’s definition for myself, I was surprised to find that it did not agree with Sproul’s definition of draw. Albrecht Oepke comments that in John’s usage of helkuo “force or magic may be discounted, but not the supernatural element” [TDNT, 2:503]. Yet for Sproul’s definition to hold up, John’s usage must mean to compel or force. When I turned to find out what “Little” Kittel (the one-volume abridged edition of Kittel’s massive ten volume work) had to say on “draw,” I was shocked at what it had to say in comparison to Sproul’s dogmatic assertions. Here is the entire comment as translated and abridged by Geoffrey Bromiley:

The basic meaning is “to draw,” “tug,” or, in the case of persons, “compel.” It may be used for “to draw” to a place by magic, for demons being “drawn” to animal life, or for the inner influencing of the will (Plato). The Semitic world has the concept of an irresistible drawing to God (cf. 1 Sam. 10:5; 19:19ff.; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7). In the OT helkein denotes a powerful impulse, as in Cant. 1:4, which is obscure but expresses the force of love. This is the point in the two important passages in Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic [p. 227].

What? The compulsion is not automatic? But this is exactly what Sproul and other Calvinists argue that helkuo means in John 6:44 — God literally and irresistibly compels, drags, or forces the elect to come to Christ. Yes, helkuo can literally mean drag, compel, or force in certain contexts (John 18:10; 21:6,11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; and James 2:6), but it is not the lexical meaning for the context of John 6:44, nor for that manner, John 12:32. Sproul confidently states that “linguistically and lexicographically, the word means to compel,” but where is the citation of all the lexical evidence to support this statement?” [Steve Witzki, Free Grace or Forced Grace?, The Arminian, Vol. 19, issue 1] You can read the rest of Steve’s article here.

I would add the description of helkuo given in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words,

HELKUO, to draw, differs from suro as drawing does from violent dragging…This less violent significance, usually present in helko, but always absent from suro, is seen in the metaphorical use of helko, to signify drawing by inward power, by Divine impulse, John 6:44; 12:32. (328)

Here, the very connection that Calvinists often like to make (that helkuo in Jn. 6:44 has reference to violent dragging) is plainly discounted.

I agree with Forlines’ assessment in responding to a similar argument put forth by Calvinist Robert W. Yarbrough,

I think the evidence Yarbrough presents does suggest that the drawing of John 6:44 is strong. I have no problem with the idea that the drawing spoken of in John 6:44 is a “strong drawing”. But I do have a problem with speaking of it as a “forceful attraction”. A word used literally may have a causal force when dealing with physical relationships. However, we cannot require that that word have the same causal force when it is used metaphorically with reference to an influence and response relationship. John 6:44 speaks of a personal influence and response relationship. (F. Leroy Forlines, The Quest for Truth, pg. 386- emphasis his)

It is quite clear from Sproul’s comments and those of other Reformed theologians, that they see the drawing in Jn. 6:44 to refer to irresistible regeneration. In other words, “draw” is synonymous with “give life”. Therefore an accurate paraphrase of Jn 6:44 from a Calvinist view point would be,

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me first gives him life.”

So, according to Reformed doctrine, no one can “come” unless they are first regenerated [i.e. given life]. Only those who have first been given spiritual life can “come” to Christ. While this interpretation may line up with the teachings of Calvinism, it renders nonsensical two related passages in the gospel of John. Consider John 5:40,

“And you are unwilling to come to Me so that you mayhave life” (NASB-emphasis mine)

Jesus tells these Jews that having life is the result of coming to Him. Calvinism teaches that coming to Jesus is the result of already having life! If the Calvinist interpretation of Jn. 6:44 is accurate then Jesus should have said,

“And you are unwilling to come to Me because you have not been given life.”

When dealing with John 6, Calvinists are quick to point out that “come” is a synonym for faith. They come to this conclusion by comparing the parallelism in John 6:35. They then read this conclusion into John 6:37, 44, 45, and 65. They would likely agree that when Jesus speaks of “eating” His flesh and “drinking” his blood, He is also speaking about faith, for nobody can have such a relationship with God except by faith. John 6:51-58 would seem to confirm this.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world…I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day…Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your fathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. (NIV)

It is clear from these passages that one must first eat and drink [by faith] the flesh and blood of Christ before they can experience life. The life resides in Christ and flows into those who partake of him by faith. If the Calvinist concept of regeneration preceding faith were accurate, then we would again expect to see Jesus saying something more like,

If anyone eats this bread [by faith] it is proof that he was already living. This bread is my flesh which I will give only to those who I have unconditionally elected and irresistibly regenerated in the world…I tell you the truth, unless you have been made alive you cannot eat the flesh of the Son of Man or drink his blood. Whoever has been given eternal life will eat my flesh and drink my blood, and I will raise him up at the last day…so the one who is living will feed on me…Your fathers ate manna and died, but he who already lives forever will feed on this bread.

The record is plain. Eternal life resides in Christ (Jn 1:4; 5:26; 6:35; 11:25; 14:6; 1Jn. 1:2; 5:11; Col. 3:4), and only those who come to Christ in faith will experience this life. The Reformed doctrine that one must first experience life, before he or she can come, is out of harmony with the testimony of God’s word.

The context of John 6 and the theological emphasis of the gospel of John forbids the Calvinist interpretation of John 6:44. The Arminian understanding of prevenient grace, however, does justice to the context of Jn. 6 and the overall tenor of John’s gospel. Steve Witzki said it well when he concluded,

Let us review the last few comments on the word draw from “little” Kittel:

There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic.

What is rather ironic in all of this discussion is that the above definition coincides beautifully with the Wesleyan-Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace — a doctrine that R.C. Sproul denies that the Bible teaches [pp. 123-125]. Wesleyan-Arminians believe that divine grace works in the hearts and wills of every person to elicit a faith response or as Thomas Oden states so well, “God’s love enables precisely that response in the sinner which God’s holiness demands: trust in God’s own self-giving” [The Transforming Power of Grace, p. 45].

God’s prevenient or assisting grace is morally drawing all people to Himself (John 12:32). This gracious working of God does not compel or force anyone to believe but enables all to respond to God’s commands to turn away from sin in repentance, and towards the Savior Jesus Christ in faith. Thus, with all the strength of Calvinism, salvation can be ascribed completely to God, but without denying genuine human responsibility that Calvinism does. (Witzki, Free Grace or Forced Grace?)

We conclude with the plain declaration of John 20:31,

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

For more on John 6 and related passages in John with regards to the claims of Calvinism, see here. (you will also find several more helpful posts and articles linked to at the bottom that post).

In “Debating Calvinism,” James White responds to Dave Have by suggesting that “born again” does not necessarily equal salvation. White states that first one is regenerated and only when he believes, does he become “saved.”

However, regeneration as the new creature is “in Christ” (2Cor 5:17), and hence the Calvinist is forced to conclude that a person who is “in Christ,” remains unsaved/lost until he believes. Yet, Romans 8:1 states that anyone in Christ is no longer under condemnation, which essentially means saved.

Despite what Sproul says, not all Calvinists believe in preemptive regeneration, as Calvinist, D. James Kennedy, states: “Our faith and our repentance are the work of God’s grace in our hearts. Our contribution is simply the sin for which Jesus Christ suffered and died. Would you be born anew? There has never been a person who sought for that who did not find it. Even the seeking is created by the Spirit of God. Would you know that new life? Are you tired of the emptiness and purposelessness of your life? Are you tired of the filthy rags of your own righteousness? Would you trust in someone else other than yourself? Then look to the cross of Christ. Place your trust in him. Ask him to come in and be born in you today. For Jesus came into the world from glory to give us second birth because we must–we MUST–be born again.” (Why I Believe, p.140, emphasis mine)

D. James Kennedy clearly indicates a belief that one can pray to be made born again, which means that an unregenerate person, by the Prevenient Grace of God, is divinely enabled to respond to the Gospel. Surely Kennedy believes in Irresistible Grace, but by his admission, he reveals that he does not believe that such alleged, Irresistible Grace, stems from the new birth. My brother in law, a bull dog Calvinist, also does not accept Calvinistic preemptive new birth, since he believes that God merely pops faith on “the elect,” which upon belief in Christ, are then “saved.” This is why discussing anything with a Calvinist can be so tricky, because there is such a tremendous variance in beliefs amongst Calvinists. Even Calvinist, Phil Johnson, once admitted that if you had a room full of Calvinists, you’d be hard-pressed to find merely two that believed everything about the Bible the same way. Within Calvinism, you have Single Predestinationists and Double Predestination, as well as Supra, Infra and Sublapsarians, together with 4-Points and 5-Pointers, together with combinations of each, such as 4-Double Predestinationist, Supralapsarians. And then they accuse Arminians of misrepresenting them. Heck, it’s hard to keep up with them. And it is Calvinists themselves who frequently charge that the other is “not truly reformed” if they believe slightly differently about any one issue.

I know that James White doesn’t think being born again is necessarily synonymous with salvation. I think he is just inconsistent about that one, and as you pointed out, at odds with the testimony of God’s word.

You are quite right that Calvinists are hard to pin down theologically. They are very slippery to debate with. I do think, however, that the belief that irresistible regeneration precedes faith is what most Calvinists have historically believed. I think guys like Kennedy and your Calvinist friend are anomalies with respect to that doctrine.

I would also be innclined to believe that anything less than a five point Calvinist is that much less than a true Calvinist, and most certianly theologically inconsistent.

Greetings BenjaminHow are you FEELING, “young man”? I imagine you have been stirred up with all the INTIMACY you have been having. Whatever you are FEELING, Benny, your process is not about me, but unprocessed STUFF from your childhood. Did you ever find that POST (Why did you delete it) [WINK] [WINK]. You are such a CONTROL FREAK, Ben? Do you think that Jesus was a CONTROL FREAK, Benny? Why did Jesus speak in PARABLES? I LOVE you, Benjamin! Do you LOVE me? How do you FEEL, Ben? Are you feeling, FEAR?1 John 4:18There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. (NIV)PEACE BE WITH YOUMICKY

This is the last time I will speak to you. Yes, I am feeling fear. I fear for your mental health and loose grasp on reality. Yes I did find that post you deleted. JC did a “google cache” search and sent it to my e-mail. I noticed you deleted my comment before you decided to delete the post. Bravo.Any more comments you leave will be deleted. I suggest you take JC’s advice and get some help.

You write that the term draw figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (John 12:32) but without which no one can come (John 6:44).

The problem in your interpretation does not lie in draw, but in all. You assume that all in John 12:32 means all people, but this is where your exegis falls short. If you look at the context of the preceding verses you will see that all here means all types of men. Your view can not stand since all men have not nor will not be drawn unto Him.

If Jesus were to draw all men to him as you claim then would you say that all people throughout time have been drawn to Jesus? Even the ones that never hear of Him? If that is not the case then all men can not mean what you say. Otherwise you would have the Lord not speak the truth when He said that He will draw all men to Himself.

I fear that it is your Arminian perspective that has lead you astray. I doubt that this will convince you as well, but keep studying and learning. May God Himself one day teach you.

Actually I did more than just say they were wrong, I demonstrated why their argument does not follow, and why the Arminian interpretation better fits the context and grammar. Sorry you found it unconvincing. Of course, I am not surprised.

If Jesus were to draw all men to him as you claim then would you say that all people throughout time have been drawn to Jesus?

I would not say all people throughout time have been drawn to Jesus in the same way. Christ makes it clear that it is not until He is “lifted up” that He will draw all men to Himself. Jesus seems to be speaking of the specific drawing which accompanies the gospel message, which Paul calls: “Christ and Him crucified”.

Even the ones that never hear of Him?

As for those who never hear the gospel, they are not initially drawn in this way, but can still be drawn by the revelation of God in creation. God will hold us accountable for the way that we respond to whatever revelation we are given. It may also be that God will make sure those who respond to the small measure of revelation and grace God gives them, will eventually have an opportunity to respond to the gospel. This could be through visions [as is the case with many Muslims, etc.] or through missionary activity.

I fear that it is your Arminian perspective that has lead you astray.

That is quite possible, just as it is possible that your Calvinist perspective has led you astray. All I can do is try to be as honest with God’s word as possible. I believe that Arminian theology best comports with what I see as the overall testimony of Scripture. You are welcomed to believe otherwise. We will both be judged accordingly.

You are not being consistent in your thinking. On the one hand you say that all here means that Christ draws ALL men and then you say that ALL here means of hearing the Gospel. Then you go of on another tangent and say that man can be saved by the revelation that everyone has been given.

So if all means ALL as you say it does then why would Jesus say that He will draw all men to Him? If you say that it is the Gospel being preached then you would have Jesus say something that is not true when He said that HE WILL DRAW ALL, it amazes me that you hold to such ridiculous reasoning.

You are not being consistent in your thinking. On the one hand you say that all here means that Christ draws ALL men and then you say that ALL here means of hearing the Gospel.

Please remember your initial argument that I was addressing:

If you look at the context of the preceding verses you will see that all here means all types of men.

This is the argument I was addressing. I do not concede that “all” means “all kinds of men” as in “some [elect] men among all men“. That is an unjustified and forced reading of the text.

What I was saying was that “all men” means “all men without exception”, without reference to any eternal decree that would prohibit most men from being drawn. This does not mean, however, that “all men” are necessarily granted the same opportunity to respond.

All men are drawn through the gospel, but not all men receive the gospel. However, like I said before, I do believe that God can draw even those who have not received the gospel [through God’s revelation in creation], and depending on their response, make the gospel available to them.

What you want this verse to do is limit the “all” to the “elect among all”. What you are trying to say is that even those who hear the gospel are unable to respond because God will not draw them. That is the position that I was addressing; and that is the position that cannot be accurately “drawn” from these passages.

Why not take this from the top. We are told that no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. We are told that all that come will be raised up. We are also told, and apparently you agree, that all manner of men will be drawn to Him. Not just Jews, but all types of men.

Now we can go to the meat of it. Who will come? Answer: all that are drawn. How can they come? Answer: the must be drawn. Are all men drawn? We both say no to this. So that leaves us with the elect are drawn and come to Christ. Notice it does not say maybe, should, or could come. It says ALL will come and be raised up.

How you think you have disproved Calvinism is what amazes me. In fact if you actually take the time to look at your argument and reasoning you would be more in line with Calvinism than any Arminian. I take it that you are still in school? Might I recommend that you at least finish your learning before you embark on this quest of yours. It might help you to understand the entirety of Scripture, not just your supposed Arminian proof texts

Why not take this from the top. We are told that no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him.

I agree so far.

We are told that all that come will be raised up.

Agreed. The one who comes in response to the Father’s drawing will be raised up.

We are also told, and apparently you agree, that all manner of men will be drawn to Him.

According to John 12:32 all men who hear the gospel, without exception, will be drawn. I thought it was obvious from what I previously wrote that I deny that “all men” means “all manner of men”, so I am not sure why you think we are in agreement there.

Not just Jews, but all types of men.

That is true according to John 12:32, but again, the drawing is not limited to “all types of men” in the sense that you have described it [some men among all types of men].

Now we can go to the meat of it.

OK

Who will come? Answer: all that are drawn.

That may be the answer the Calvinist reads into the text, but the text nowhere affirms this.

How can they come? Answer: the must be drawn

Agreed

Are all men drawn? We both say no to this.

Actually, I do not say “no” to this. I affirm that all who hear the gospel are drawn by it according to John 12:32. You believe that only those elected by some secret eternal decree are drawn. Big difference.

So that leaves us with the elect are drawn and come to Christ.

Since your premises are in error, your conclusion is as well.

Notice it does not say maybe, should, or could come. It says ALL will come and be raised up.

Which verse says “All will come and be raised up”?

How you think you have disproved Calvinism is what amazes me.

Again, I am flattered that you think I am so amazing.

In fact if you actually take the time to look at your argument and reasoning you would be more in line with Calvinism than any Arminian.

How so?

I take it that you are still in school?

That would be a wrong assumption on your part. I graduated from Bible College in 1996. How is any of this relevant?

Might I recommend that you at least finish your learning before you embark on this quest of yours.

That might be difficult considering I have been out of school for going on 12 years now. I am still learning though. Are you?

It might help you to understand the entirety of Scripture, not just your supposed Arminian proof texts

Thank you. I only hope you are careful not to have a plank in your eye when making statements like that.

OK…I appreciate your little James White cross examination imitation, but I have a few questions for you now.

Do you see the “drawing” of John 6:44 and 12:32 as regeneration?

Do you believe that regeneration precedes faith? If so, I would love for you to read my post “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” Since you are obviously a very intelligent person, who is amazed at my ineptitude, I would love your opinion on that post. I am anxious to hear how my reasoning is flawed.

You seem to believe that the presence of some native who has never heard the gospel falsifies my claim that the gospel draws all men. Could you explain how that is so? If the text actually refers to “all kinds of men” wouldn’t that include unreached natives? Aren’t they a “kind” of man?

It should be noted that you and I have a very different idea of what is being taught in John 6. I do not have the time to give a detailed exegesis. I will, however, refer you to a link which gives an Arminian interpretation of the passage that I agree with. If you take the time to read it, you will discover why I find most of your objections to be based on a misreading of the text, and a misunderstanding of the unique cultural and historical setting in which this important dialogue took place.

I would like to take some time to explain why I believe you are inconsistent. I think “anonymous” made a good attempt, but did not finish the job.

You seem to be able to “debunk” Sproul’s citation, but you do not explain what “draw” means. Does it mean to woo or entice? Please give your lexicographical citation please.

Next I would like to look at your understanding of John 5:40. Do you think that when Jesus refers to “life” he is referring to eternal life, or spiritual regeneration? I think from the context of what Jesus said is clear that he is referring to “eternal life, abundant life” Or “of the absolute fullness of life, both essential and ethical”. Is it possible to say that Jesus was saying in essence “You refuse to come to me so that you will receive eternal life (not regeneration). Meaning, that anyone who is regenerated and then repents and trust will be granted eternal life. I think you understanding of eternal life and regeneration are flawed. A person is regenerated and then granted eternal life, these terms cannot be synonymous. I think the NLT has a good translation surprisingly.

39 “You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! 40 Yet you refuse to come to me to receive this life.

Notice how it says, “this life”. I think that is referring to what Jesus said in verse 39.

All of your citations of verses where Jesus speaks of eating his flesh have to do with you’re understanding of the above verses.

Lastly, your interpretation of John 6:44 is not consistent and “anonymous” attempted to point out. In John 6:44 Jesus claims that everyone who is drawn will in fact be raised to eternal life. So in you’re interpretation of John 6:44 everyone(every single human) is drawn by God. If every human is drawn by God, then you must remain consistent to say that if every human is drawn, then every human is raised to eternal life.

Fact: Everyone who is drawn by the father is raised by the father.Fact: Everyone who is raised by the father, has eternal life. “40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.””Fact: Everyone who has been raised by the father was given to the Son. “39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.”

Now I turn it back over to you. Please give me lexicographical citations proving your use of helkuo. Also, please explain your use of helkuo, does it mean to woo or entice? Lastly, please answer: If every man is drawn by God, then every man is raised by God how is that not universalism?

PS I do not choose to be rude, or throw stones at you for you’re theological beliefs. Thank you for being open, using your time and seeking to be consistent.

Thanks for stopping by. I do believe my position is inconsistent, but only with Calvinism. Calvinism, to me, is one of the most inconsistent theological positions that one could possibly hold. That is, of course, just my opinion. In the end it will not matter what you or I think, but only what the word of God truly teaches. I trust that both of us are doing our best to discover that without being hung up on what must fit into our particular systematic.

The lexicographical evidence is right in the post. Kittel, for instance, sates:

“There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic.”

There is nothing in the word itself that can conclusively tell us how the word should be used in this context. The context must determine this. I know that you feel the context favors your position, but I disagree. You have also stated that all who are drawn are raised. I just can’t find that in my Bible. Where does it say that? My Bible says that all who come will be raised, and that no one can come unless they are first drawn. That is quite a different thing than “all who are drawn will be raised”.

My time is very limited right now, so I can’t address all of your points, and I just don’t have time to get into an endless debate with someone whose mind is made up. I assure you that my mind is made up as well, and I have already read the best Calvinists on John 6, so I can’t imagine that you will bring something new to the table.

I would recommend that you read the following link which gives an exegesis of John 6 (as well as similar passages in John 5, 8, and 10) which I think is superior to the standard Calvinist interpretation. It is a long essay, but I think you will benefit from it.

As far as John 5, I think the context speaks of regeneration (verses 24, and 25 speak of a spiritual resurrection which is the language of regeneration), and that the full and abundant life you speak of must begin at regeneration (that’s what regeneration means: the beginning of new life). This life can only come through union with Christ which Scripture plainly teaches is by faith (Eph. 1:13 says we are sealed in Christ through faith, etc.).

Like I said, we will just have to agree to disagree. I don’t have time for endless debates.

Thanks for stopping by and for taking the time to read my post. May God bless you as you continue to seek Him.

It is true my mind is made up, but I dont see how you can fit another meaning of “draw”.

No mean can come to the son unless the father “entices him”?

What do you think helkuo means? I think my position is very consistent, I am still looking for areas of inconsistancy. Please show me when you have more time how my exegesis of John 6 is inconsistent.

From what you have written, that does not seem to be fair. The only way an arminian can exegete John 6 is to leave the context of John 6 and grab some verse out of context for help. I don’t see that as being consistent.

I encourage you to read the essay I directed you. I think it would be very helpful to you.

Draw means “draw”. The meaning is not that complicated. The question has only to do with whether or not this drawing is irresistible or not.

For instance, that a former Alcoholic is drawn to alcohol does not mean that he must submit to that drawing. All of us are drawn to things at certain times in our life, but I hope you would agree that being drawn to something does not mean that we must positively act on that drawing.

I respect Sproul as a teacher immensely, yet it is clear he has not worked in a prison. Even the poor, even Paul and Silas, though “compelled” had options to get out of the situation. They could have bitten and scratched their “draggers” or gouged their eyes out. They could have run or fought. Of course that may well have cost them their lives, but then that matches just as well with the sinner fighting off prevenient grace. You do so at the cost of your eternal life.

Even if the word were to imply sheer apprehension, an authority apprehending another (e.g. Philippians 3:12) does not make the apprehension irresistible, but it’s generally in you best interests to comply.

Scripture teaches both concepts really; there is a sense in which we are apprehended by God (cited above), but also a sense in which we are wooed.

“Therefore I am now going to allure her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her.” (Hosea 2:14)

We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. (2 Corinthians 5:20)

And even drawing people by making them envious, desiring His goodness,

[…] of the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration precedes faith. Does Regeneration Precede Faith? Does John 6:44 teach Irresistible Grace? Does Jesus Teach That Regeneration Precedes Faith In John 3:3, […]

The very passage the Calvinists quote as a proof-text for regeneration prior to faith show, rather, that regeneration is after faith. That is John 1:12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:” Clearly, He gave them power to become sons of God when they believed on his name. If they believed on his name, then they have faith already. And they receive the power to become sons of God (i.e. power to be regenerated) when they believe. This passage shows clearly (1) that faith precedes regeneration, and (2) that faith itself is not regeneration but the condition that must be met before one can be regenerated. Regeneration is synonymous to the rebirth, “of water and of the Spirit.” The point of faith is where a man receives the power to become regenerate, but he does not become regenerate until he uses that power, which he does in believer’s baptism as is clearly shown in Galatians 3:26-27 that we are sons of God by faith because we have been baptized into Christ. By faith because we received the power to become sons of God at the point of faith, but also because we have been baptized because in baptism we finally used the power that we had received.

Steve Gregg, the host of the Narrow Path Radio show, made the following comment about John 6:44:

John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

Does this say that all men are born in a spiritual condition that precludes their being able to be persuaded to believe in Christ and to repent of their sins? Obviously, this idea can be “read-into” the verse, if one has a prior commitment to the idea, but is this the only plausible meaning?

It is not essential, at this point, to decide among multiple plausible meanings of the statement (though that would be worth doing, if we were merely studying the book of John, and not examining the special claims of Calvinistic interpreters about a single verse). If there is more than one plausible intended meaning of the statement, then it cannot be said that one of these possible interpretations proves an otherwise disputed point.

It seems clear that Jesus’ statement could be true, even if the Calvinist doctrine of total inability were not true. For example, one reasonable suggestion is that it means, “No one would even think of recognizing me as Lord and Messiah, if not for the many ways in which the Father works to convince them of who I am (e.g., through the miracles, the testimony of John and of the Old Testament scriptures, and even the witness of the Father’s voice from heaven).” These phenomena are referred to in the previous chapter as various ways in which the Father testifies of Christ, or, we might say, “draws men to Christ” (John 5:31-47).

After all, the next verse says, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.” “Hearing” and “learning” are not unambiguous synonyms for “regeneration”—even though Calvinists might think it necessary to take them that way. This could as easily be saying, “The Father has been testifying of me in many ways. Those who are paying attention (hearing and learning from the Father) are coming. Those who will not pay attention to the Father’s witness can not come, because they remain unconvinced (not necessarily powerless).” It seems to me that a not-particularly-Calvinistic meaning of the statement is at least as “natural” a reading of John 6:44 as is a Calvinistic interpretation—rendering it a flimsy proof-text for a novel doctrine not clearly taught elsewhere in scripture.

I find this a thoughtful, even and excellent presentation. While I do not have the scholarly background to add to this discussion, I certainly can recognize how Calvinistic heresy makes Jesus a mocker each time He calls men to Himself if He knows they can do no such thing, God the Father an arbitrary and merciless God who has no desire for the majority (Matt. 7:13), and both Peter (2 Pet. 3:9) and Paul (1 Tim. 2:4) liars when they claim it is not God’s will for any to perish. Many thanks to the author for sharing his thoughts and study.

Just want to comment on
“John 5:40, “And you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life” (NASB-emphasis mine)
Jesus tells these Jews that having life is the result of coming to Him. Calvinism teaches that coming to Jesus is the result of already having life! … ”

We all have the obligation to obey the Law, to respond to the Gospel, as God commands. In fact, if anyone was able to obey the whole Law, he would be saved! But the Bible makes it clear no one is able to obey the Law except Jesus, that’s why we need Jesus. Similarly, if anyone believes in Jesus (or come to Him), he will be saved (or have life). And Calvinist’s point is: no one will believe, or is willing to believe, unless the Father draws him, just as Romans 3:11 makes it clear “no one who seeks God” or Romans 8:5-8. Consider John 5:40 again, if we rephrase “And you are unwilling to obey the Law so that you may have life”, then it means that the result of obeying the Law is having life, this statement is true, but who can obey the Law? Therefore, God must first give life because we’re all spiritual dead (Eph 2:1-10) in nature. So in John 5:40 Jesus is simply giving this fact: if you come to me, you will have life but you are unwilling nor are you able to come by yourself, unless I give you life first, then you will come to me (willingly).

Regarding to the word “draw”, it hurts the feeling of many when they read “unless the Father compels him”, but think about comparing with God, we’re less than an ant. It’s perfectly ok with me the concept of a kid taking/drawing this ant to this place or that place. Don’t misunderstand me, i’m not suggesting God treating men as ants, rather think about you sending your own son die for an ant.

Hope this helps. May God be gracious and give understanding to each one of us.
Grace and peace,
James

Just want to comment on
“John 5:40, “And you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life” (NASB-emphasis mine)
Jesus tells these Jews that having life is the result of coming to Him. Calvinism teaches that coming to Jesus is the result of already having life! … ”

We all have the obligation to obey the Law, to respond to the Gospel, as God commands. In fact, if anyone was able to obey the whole Law, he would be saved! But the Bible makes it clear no one is able to obey the Law except Jesus, that’s why we need Jesus.

I agree with this. Our failure to obey the law makes us aware of our need for Christ, and only through Christ can we be forgiven and justified.

Similarly, if anyone believes in Jesus (or come to Him), he will be saved (or have life).

Amen.

And Calvinist’s point is: no one will believe, or is willing to believe, unless the Father draws him, just as Romans 3:11 makes it clear “no one who seeks God” or Romans 8:5-8.

That is the Arminian’s point as well.

Consider John 5:40 again, if we rephrase “And you are unwilling to obey the Law so that you may have life”, then it means that the result of obeying the Law is having life, this statement is true, but who can obey the Law?

Not sure why we would want to rephrase it. Why not just accept it for what it actually says? You are right that the result of obeying is life. That is precisely the point and demonstrates that regeneration preceding faith is unbiblical, since one must first believe in order to have life.

Therefore, God must first give life because we’re all spiritual dead (Eph 2:1-10) in nature.

This contradicts what you just said above. Above you paralleled life resulting from the law with life resulting from faith (didn’t you?), but now you say one must have life in order to believe. How can life be the result of believing if one must first have life in order to believe? Yes, we are dead in sin prior to union with Christ, but we come to be in Christ through faith (Eph. 1:13). Nowhere does Scripture teach that regeneration precedes faith.

So in John 5:40 Jesus is simply giving this fact: if you come to me, you will have life but you are unwilling nor are you able to come by yourself, unless I give you life first, then you will come to me (willingly).

Look at how much you need to read into the text in order to conform it to your theology. Jesus says life is the result of coming to Him, and that undermines your claim that life (regeneration) precedes faith. Plain and simple.

Regarding to the word “draw”, it hurts the feeling of many when they read “unless the Father compels him”, but think about comparing with God, we’re less than an ant. It’s perfectly ok with me the concept of a kid taking/drawing this ant to this place or that place. Don’t misunderstand me, i’m not suggesting God treating men as ants, rather think about you sending your own son die for an ant.

No need to talk about ants or what may or may not hurt people’s feelings. All we need to do is accept what Scripture says concerning the Father’s drawing, and that has already been explained in this post (i.e. it is a necessary but resistible drawing).

Thank you for your response. I do not intend to argue nor to convince you, but perhaps this is a type of good discussion on the words of God, and I also want to make my point more clear: just as no one can obey the Law and gain life, so also no one can believe unless God first grants this grace of believing. There is no contradiction in my previous statement, only paradox. We come to be in Christ through faith, but this faith is also a gift from God [Eph 2:8], not originated from us naturally spiritually dead men. Think about it, what makes you different from others that you made the right choice to believe in Christ while other made the wrong choice not to believe?

Heb 11:6 says without faith it is impossible to please God and Romans 8:8 shows we in our sinful nature cannot please God, showing faith cannot exist or be originated in our natural sinful state, otherwise afterall we can please God. The whole point is, we are spiritually dead, faith is a spiritual thing, a spiritual dead person cannot possess or generate any spiritual thing. Jesus says, “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” [John 3:6]

As I said, there is no contradiction in my previous statement, only paradox, let me make it clear here:

“This contradicts what you just said above. Above you paralleled life resulting from the law with life resulting from faith (didn’t you?), but now you say one must have life in order to believe. How can life be the result of believing if one must first have life in order to believe? ”

Yes, life is the result of believing, but no one will believe, because there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God [Romans 3:11]. So Jesus said in John 5:40 you are unwilling to come to me, otherwise if you come to me, you will be saved.

Since no one can come to God by their natural state, God has to change their natural state so that they can come to God in their new state, and willingly confess with their mouth and believe in their heart, as God says:

Eze 36:26-27 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

And that’s also why Jesus says “you must be born again” [John 3:3, 6-8]. And I wonder: can one choose to be born? we don’t choose to be born of our parents, right? And similarly, now we’re spiritual dead, how can we choose to be born of the spirit? Jesus says, “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” [John 3:6]

By the way, I am not a Calvinist, nor an Arminian, but I have a lot of respect for both. I didn’t read theological books written by both parties, but I do spend a little time checking with the Bible and pray, when I read things like this in the internet. So I think when we argue, it’s better to quote Scripture, rather than appeal to our own human philosophical reasoning. I am not saying what I have said is correct, but I think if we can all discuss by quoting Scriptural support, though at time we may be wrong, in the end, if we’re persistent in checking with and studying the Bible, by His grace we will come to better understanding of His word.

I don’t have time for a long discussion and I am not looking for an argument either. Most of your concerns have been addressed at length elsewhere on this site. I will, however, address your last response. You wrote,

…and I also want to make my point more clear: just as no one can obey the Law and gain life, so also no one can believe unless God first grants this grace of believing.

That is fine. No one is arguing that God’s grace isn’t needed in order to enable a faith response. What the Arminian denies is the correlation between this enabling grace and regeneration. The Arminian also denies that this enabling grace is irresistible in that it will always cause faith in the one enabled (there is an obvious difference between enablement and causation).

There is no contradiction in my previous statement, only paradox.

Calling a contradiction a paradox doesn’t make it any less a contradiction. One must first have life in order to believe and one must first believe in order to have life is a plain contradiction.

We come to be in Christ through faith, but this faith is also a gift from God [Eph 2:8], not originated from us naturally spiritually dead men.

Yes, we come to be in Christ by faith and only in Christ does new life reside. You would have us possessing new spiritual life prior to union with Christ, which is theologically absurd. Also, the “gift” in Ephesians 2:8 is not “faith” (it is salvation). The Greek grammar is strongly against such a conclusion. Not to mention the fact that it would result in Paul essentially saying “and this faith is not of works”, which is a rather obvious truism, especially considering the fact that Paul is already contrasting faith with works. However, it is not a problem in understanding faith as the gift of God in the sense that God must enable faith, but this is not irresistible as sated above.

Think about it, what makes you different from others that you made the right choice to believe in Christ while other made the wrong choice not to believe?

Nothing besides the choice itself, assuming both were enabled to believe. But faith is non-meritorious because it is simple trusting in the work and merit of Christ. God reckons us righteous through faith of His own free and sovereign will, and not because salvation is somehow earned or deserved because we believe.

Yes, only through faith can we be pleasing to God since only through faith can we come to be in union with His beloved Son and be justified in God’s sight. The sinful man cannot even believe without God’s gracious enabling power. Romans 8 is not discussing the inability to have faith, but the inability to please God through law keeping. However, the believer can please God through law keeping through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:3-4, 12-14). Therefore, only through faith union with Christ can one keep the law in such a way that God will be pleased with it (even if not perfectly).

The whole point is, we are spiritually dead, faith is a spiritual thing, a spiritual dead person cannot possess or generate any spiritual thing.

You misunderstand what it means to be dead in sin. To reject the gospel is a spiritual decision, and those who are dead in sin do that all the time. Even sin is a spiritual act, and those who are dead in sin do that as well. Still, I fully agree that one cannot put faith in Christ apart from divine enablement. However, that divine enablement is not regeneration.

Are you now suggesting that one must be filled with the Holy Spirit in order to believe?

As I said, there is no contradiction in my previous statement, only paradox, let me make it clear here:

Please do.

Yes, life is the result of believing, but no one will believe, because there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God [Romans 3:11]. So Jesus said in John 5:40 you are unwilling to come to me, otherwise if you come to me, you will be saved.

Since no one can come to God by their natural state, God has to change their natural state so that they can come to God in their new state, and willingly confess with their mouth and believe in their heart, as God says:

If life is the result of believing, then you have conceded the point. Again, no one can come unless enabled (drawn), but it does not follow that this drawing equals regeneration, nor does it follow that this drawing is irresistible.

Eze 36:26-27 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

Where do you see that God will do this apart from faith? And again, are you suggesting that God fills us with His Spirit prior to our believing?

And that’s also why Jesus says “you must be born again” [John 3:3, 6-8]. And I wonder: can one choose to be born? we don’t choose to be born of our parents, right? And similarly, now we’re spiritual dead, how can we choose to be born of the spirit? Jesus says, “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” [John 3:6]

If you are interested in my thoughts on John 3, and why I think you have completely misconstrued the passage, you can follow the link below:

I am not saying what I have said is correct, but I think if we can all discuss by quoting Scriptural support, though at time we may be wrong, in the end, if we’re persistent in checking with and studying the Bible, by His grace we will come to better understanding of His word.

I agree, and that is why I quoted quite a bit of Scripture in the post and interacted with it. It is not just about quoting Scripture, however, but properly interpreting it. That is where I believe Calvinism falls woefully short, especially when such interpretations cause us to have to swallow numerous contradictions.

I must say that I enjoy this debate because it gives me a greater appreciation of divergent views. The treatment of the issues is so much better than the ‘debate’ between James White and Dave Hunt.
I have seen at least two issues raised to John 6:44. The Arminian argument appears to hold that the word ‘draw’ in the text applies to ‘all’ and that it simply refers to ‘inclination’ rather than a ‘determined compulsion.’
Both of these seemed to be answered in my opinion by Scripture. The rest of the text indicates that those drawn will be saved (Reformed Servant’s point) which would seem to imply a determinism on the part of God or else a universal view of salvation. As far as ‘inclination’, the usage of the word draw in the rest of Scripture also seems to favor the Calvinist position.
Thanks for your spirited but gracious debate.

Did you read the post? Maybe you could do what Reformed Servant could not and show me specifically where the text says that all who are drawn will also be saved. Also, I wouldn’t say that John 6:44 says all will be drawn. I would only say that it says that no one can come unless drawn. However, John 12:32 certainly does say that Christ will draw all men unto Himself.

no one understands no one who seek God. How can a man choose God if the scriptures says that no one who seeks God. Men loves darkness rather than light, everything in man’s heart was only evil. Grace, faith it is a gift of God. So that no one can boast. And who are we to question God’s sovereign will, are we greater than Job or Paul, who are we to question His plan. If we have faith in Christ then let us be thankful to God that we are part of His elect before the foundation of the world.

While studying the O.T., a question came to mind I have asked of a Calvinist only once. That time produced no answer. I will try again here.

Throughout the prophets, we see God calling out to the Jews to repent and be restored. If I am to believe the Calvinist standard view, in particular Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace, it seems I can come to only one of two impossible conclusions.

Either 1) God knows that, without regeneration they cannot seek Him from their hearts, and knowing He has not accomplished that nonetheless continues to senselessly keep trying, or 2) He has regenerated them so that His attempts to call them to Him make sense but “Irresistible Grace” isn’t irresistible at all.

Hoping I have stated this clearly enough to present the dilemma. How is this explained?

Mark Lago said: “How can a man choose God if the scriptures says that no one who seeks God.”

***** By the grace and power of God of course! God is that powerful! Truly amazing!

“And who are we to question God’s sovereign will, are we greater than Job or Paul, who are we to question His plan.”

**** Yes, that is a good question for you Mark. Who are you to question God’s sovereign will of allowing us to choose whether to submit to him and his gospel or not? Are you greater than Job or Paul? Who are you to question his plan of love for all and election and salvation by faith?

Great post! Thanks for doing your homework and wrestling with the text! Word studies are helpful, but as James Barr would say, words find their meaning within the immediate context in which they sit. Therefore although Kittle is a very helpful resource, the question is what did John mean when he used that word? How would his original audience have heard it?

Seems to me that his audience would have understood God’s calling to be just as concrete as God’s “keeping” (or never letting one go…) in verse 37. This is a passage exalting the power of God. If one says, “Yes, but that doesn’t mean they WILL come to Him…” it is a theological conclusion that isn’t allowing the text to speak on its own terms and in its own context.

I agree that context is crucial in understanding a passage or how a word is used in a passage, and I don’t see anything in the context that would necessitate an irresistible drawing (or dragging) taking place. And keep in mind that most of this post is in response to Sroul wrongly appealing to the use of the word as “drag” in other contexts to determine the use of the word here.

There seems to me to be an obvious difference between how the word is used with regards to inanimate objects (like swords or buckets) and the human will. If I was a recovering alcoholic and said I was “drawn” to strong drink, would you think that the drawing was irresistible? If that were the case, there would be no hope for alcoholics. In all the examples where “draw” is translated “drag”, the meaning of drag is obvious based on the context. That is not the case here. That is why it is universally translated as “draw” rather than “drag” in this passage.

Just a few things don’t seem right. For a start, Christ gives life after death, to raise man on the last day. Therefore, John 5:40 does not negate the Calvinist view of John 6:44. Even then, John 6:44 is a part of a group of parallel verses. That being, verses 39;40 and 44. All 3 verses state “I will raise him on the last day”. Raise who? The one given to Jesus in v39, the one drawn in verse 44 and the one who believes in verse 40. All three verses are 100℅ synonymous. The one who believes is also the one given to Christ will the one who is drawn is also the one who will believe. Its almost like causing yourself to stumble whenever you appeal to John 12:32 in attempts to refute the Calvinist view of John 6:44. Notice that Jesus states “I will raise him on the last day”. That is, the one who is drawn. It’s not a might, it’s not a maybe, it’s not a “I’ll draw them, but if they reject Me then I won’t raise them” and it’s also not “I will raise everyone up on the last day for judgement” (as John 6 is describing faith/believing and eternal life). Jesus is not saying anywhere that man has some free will that would cause Him to be a liar. Jesus very clearly stated “I will raise Him on the last day”. Therefore, appealing to John 12:32 to show all men without exception are drawn would be to advocate universalism. To say men are drawn, but reject Christ and are not raised on the last day would make Christ a liar. That creates a bit of an issue. I’m sure you’re aware of the reformed view of John 12:32 and if not, I’d suggest looking at James White’s work on it. Otherwise, those drawn is paralleled with those given to Christ and those given do not comprise of the entire world (John 17:9). Lastly, I see no reason as to why the “drawing” of John 6:44 as you argue it is here would negate Calvinism. Calvinists take different approaches to interpretating scripture. As John Piper would look at 1 Timothy 2:4 and see God’s prescriptive will vs. His decrees. James White would all men without distinction as described in Revelation 5:9. Therefore, regardless of the draw, it’s a draw, whether it’s similar to pulling a corpse from the grave, or pulling a net out of water. I just fail to see how the interpretation you gave negated anything other than one Calvinists interpretation.

There is a lot here to go through, but I will try to just address the heart of your claim about John 6:44 which seems to be that all who are drawn are raised up. That is a common claim, but it is something that must be read into the text. The text nowhere says such a thing.

The text first says that no one can come unless drawn. What does that mean? It means exactly that: drawing is necessary before one can respond in faith and come to Christ. It does not say that all who are drawn come. It only says that no one can come unless drawn. Those are two very different things.

Then it says the one who “comes” will be raised up. So now the focus is on the one who comes in response to being drawn (since drawing is necessary to coming in verse 44). But again, the text does not say that all who are drawn come. It only says that those who come are raised up. Does such a person need to be drawn? Absolutely, since verse 44 says no one can come unless drawn. But Jesus no where says that all who are drawn come. He only addresses what will happen to those who do in fact come to Him.

To borrow an analogy from a friend, it would be like saying “no one can come to the party unless they are invited, and I will show them a great time.” Now would you conclude from this that all who were invited came to the party? Of course not, since the language does not demand that at all. It could be that some who are invited did not come, even though that is not the main focus of the sentence. And the same is true for John 6:44. So the claim that all who are drawn come and are raised up is simply not stated by the text at all.

And I would add that the context of John 12 actually makes the Calvinist interpretation impossible. For example, look at John 12:47, 48,

“If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.”

“The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge [condemn] him on the last day.”

Notice that the one who rejects Christ and is ultimately condemned as a result is included among those in “the world”, the very same “world” that Christ came to save. That means Christ came to save even those who would ultimately reject Him and be condemned as a result. That is big, big trouble for the Calvinist interpretation (and compare this language with John 3:17, 18).

You wrote: Therefore, regardless of the draw, it’s a draw, whether it’s similar to pulling a corpse from the grave, or pulling a net out of water. I just fail to see how the interpretation you gave negated anything other than one Calvinists interpretation.

Right above your comment I addressed the different uses of “draw” as follows:

“There seems to me to be an obvious difference between how the word is used with regards to inanimate objects (like swords or buckets) and the human will. If I was a recovering alcoholic and said I was “drawn” to strong drink, would you think that the drawing was irresistible? If that were the case, there would be no hope for alcoholics. In all the examples where “draw” is translated “drag”, the meaning of drag is obvious based on the context. That is not the case here. That is why it is universally translated as “draw” rather than “drag” in this passage.”

Jesus draws all (John 12:32), because His Father loves all (John 3:16, 17), and thus the Holy Spirit strives to convict all (John 16″7–11)

By the way, the drawing that God the Father does is by the message of Love that he has for all men as illustrated in the life and death of Jesus, His Son.(Note how in the O. T., God the Father drew Israel love and loving kindness.: “Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with loving kindness have I drawn thee.” (Jeremiah 31:3). Similarly, we find in Romans 2:4 the same idea, that God is trying to draw us to Him by His loving kindness. . “Do you despise the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?” Note the word “leads” and how that can be seen as being “drawn” to God by “the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience.” Also, note the parable of the prodigal son, who was drawn back to the father when he :”came to himself,” when he contemplated his father’s kindness and forbearance and patience. Luke 15:17–19.The prodigal son was drawn back to the Father by the father’s love, and not the Father’s lasso.

Three problems I see concerning Calvinism:
1. It does not take into account “all” of the Scriptures pertaining to salvation.

2. It turns man into a puppet, where he must do what God has ordained for him to do. ( Does God really get glory by having people “irresistibly” dragged into the kingdom of God? I think not. Does God really get glory from having puppets on strings worshiping Him??? I think not.

3. It plainly makes God the author of sin. (This plainly does not bring glory to God. Thus, Calvinism slanders the very nature of God. For, if God is absolutely in control of all things–as Calvinists would have you to believe–then H- is absolutely the author of S-n. I heard all the arguments from Calvinists that God is not the author of sin itself, but uses secondary or Tertiary factors. But if a Godfather order a “hit,” but orders that it be done by a secondary or third part, does that make the Godfather less culpable? I don’t think so. Again, if God is absolutely in control of all things–as Calvinists would have you to believe–then H- is absolutely the author of S-n.

These are by no means the only problems I see with Calvinism, but only three.The last one being the most serious.

„For God so loved the world( didn’t say “the elect” but the world)that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3:16‬ ‭NIV‬‬
What love is this if this is only for some elect?
„Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭4:8‬ ‭NIV‬‬
All right, so God, Who is love predestines most of the people to eternal torment in Geena?
These “ biblical “ Calvinists makes God not less than a liar.